Commentary
Evan A. Feigenbaum
{
"authors": [
"Evan A. Feigenbaum"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India",
"Pakistan",
"East Asia",
"China",
"Central Asia",
"Kazakhstan",
"Kyrgyz Republic",
"Tajikistan",
"Turkmenistan",
"Uzbekistan",
"Russia",
"Eastern Europe",
"Belarus"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Trade",
"Foreign Policy",
"Global Governance"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Central Asia, and the United States
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization will likely become less functional and coherent as the group gets bigger. Form will start to drive function, and the group will begin to search for a purpose.
Published on Jun 23, 2016
Source: Voice of America
Speaking to the Voice of America, Carnegie’s Evan Feigenbaum explained why the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is likely to become weaker, less coherent, and more diffuse as it expands to include India and Pakistan and potentially other partners in future. He argued that all such institutions weaken when form begins to drive function rather than the other way around. That has been the experience across Asia since the end of the Cold War. Feigenbaum explored the origin of the SCO in a single, focused function: the settlement of border and territorial disputes among China and four Central Asian neighbors. As it has grown to include Uzbekistan and various observers and dialogue partners, the SCO has lost focus and become less functional.
Beyond the SCO itself, Feigenbaum also discussed motivations and drivers for Chinese and Indian strategies and policies in Central Asia. And he reflected on some aspects of the U.S. experience with the SCO from his tenure as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the region during the George W. Bush administration.
This broadcast was originally published by Voice of America.
About the Author
Evan A. Feigenbaum
Vice President for Studies
Evan A. Feigenbaum is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he oversees work at its offices in Washington, New Delhi, and Singapore on a dynamic region encompassing both East Asia and South Asia. He served twice as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and advised two Secretaries of State and a former Treasury Secretary on Asia.
- In Its Iran War Debate, Washington Has Lost the Plot in Asia
- Beijing Doesn’t Think Like Washington—and the Iran Conflict Shows WhyCommentary
Evan A. Feigenbaum
Recent Work
EconomyTradeForeign PolicyGlobal GovernanceSouth AsiaIndiaPakistanEast AsiaChinaCentral AsiaKazakhstanKyrgyz RepublicTajikistanTurkmenistanUzbekistanRussiaEastern EuropeBelarus
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.Commentary
Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.
Afreen Akhter
- Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle EastCommentary
The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.
Nikita Smagin
- Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran WarCommentary
One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.
Andrew Leber, Sam Worby
- The Fog of AI WarCommentary
In Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, AI warfare has come to dominate, with barely any oversight or accountability. Europe must lead the charge on the responsible use of new military technologies.
Raluca Csernatoni
- The Shadow of the Military in Modern South AsiaArticle
Military rule is now a defining political factor in South Asia. Here’s how analysts can understand and account for it.
Paul Staniland
